Useful Searches

Welcome to Christian Forums, a forum to discuss Christianity in a friendly surrounding.

Your voice is missing! You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.

We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

I just wanted to share something my fiance' came up with. She is a jewelry designer and has a shop with her daughter. They asked if I had an outlet for some of their items and I told them I would share it with everyone here at CF. So I started them an Etsy Shop account to showcase what they have done. And this is the first items! Check it out and let me know what you think!

The Secret Service does not remain in presence of family within the private areas of the White House.

Click to expand...

Oh ok, I thought they kind of hung around outside the door of whatever room they were in orin the hallways outside the dining rooms etc. I figured they would never want to be more than a doorways distance away from them but it makes sense that the White House is secure so they don't need to be lurking in the halls. So then that makes me wonder how were they privy to what sounds like very private moments, conversations, and actions? It seems as though they have a lot of information to work with

I agree that President Kennedy's injuries incurred while serving in the Pacific in WWII, followed by a physical disability retirement, caused him to become dependent on a regimen to manage his pain. After he changed doctors and changed his regimen he became better able to cope with his responsibilities.

If someone is following medical instructions I do not call drug use "addiction." People were not as aware of the dangers of these meds in the 1960's. Nevertheless, he took steps to find a regimen with fewer side effects and was successful.

The Camelot image manufactured by the mainstream press for political advantage does not stand up to scrutiny.

Click to expand...

You might not want to know a lot about many of our presidents. Carter is the only one I can think of offhand without skeletons in his closet, maybe Ford or Eisenhower. Actually Obama doesn't rally have much now that think about it, lets see:

Even all the way back, Washington was foul mouthed, and committed genocide. By that times standards he was considered an alright guy, and whatever his flaws, he was a strong and effective president.

Oh ok, I thought they kind of hung around outside the door of whatever room they were in orin the hallways outside the dining rooms etc. I figured they would never want to be more than a doorways distance away from them but it makes sense that the White House is secure so they don't need to be lurking in the halls. So then that makes me wonder how were they privy to what sounds like very private moments, conversations, and actions? It seems as though they have a lot of information to work with

Click to expand...

I don't know what the program will actually present, and I take breathless promotion with a grain of salt.

It's been well known since the early 60s--not long after, if not during his presidency, that Kennedy was on constant high doses of pain medication. And we know that's addictive. But his back injury from WWII was also permanent.

Click to expand...

They weren't from WWII:

Here is what she probably did not know: The president's lifelong recurrent diarrhea and "colitis" is now mostly seen as autoimmune, and is genetically related to the autoimmune cause of Addison's disease. His back pain was not due to a war injury; his spinal x-rays did not show major bony abnormalities, such as arthritis. (He did have the harmful evidence of prior, probably unncessary, spinal fusion). Most of his back pain was likely due to muscle spasm; this was the eventual conclusion of Kennedy's White House doctors and consultants, and, by 1963, Kennedy had improved with a conservative physical therapy treatment. Before 1962-1963, however, Kennedy's personal physician, Janet Travell, had been repeatedly injecting him with procaine (an analog of cocaine) for the muscle spasms, with probable long-term worsening due to increased muscle weakness from the repeated injections into the muscle mass.

Here is what she probably did not know: The president's lifelong recurrent diarrhea and "colitis" is now mostly seen as autoimmune, and is genetically related to the autoimmune cause of Addison's disease. His back pain was not due to a war injury; his spinal x-rays did not show major bony abnormalities, such as arthritis. (He did have the harmful evidence of prior, probably unncessary, spinal fusion). Most of his back pain was likely due to muscle spasm; this was the eventual conclusion of Kennedy's White House doctors and consultants, and, by 1963, Kennedy had improved with a conservative physical therapy treatment. Before 1962-1963, however, Kennedy's personal physician, Janet Travell, had been repeatedly injecting him with procaine (an analog of cocaine) for the muscle spasms, with probable long-term worsening due to increased muscle weakness from the repeated injections into the muscle mass.

Also, since the hot topic of the year, is the thought that the 2016 election was stolen, if there ever was a President that stole an election, it was Kennedy.

The family, had quite a bit of help from the mob, to amass votes in Chicago and guess what, whoever won Illinois, was going to be the next president. I think Kennedy won by something like; 2,000 votes, in Illinois.

Also, since the hot topic of the year, is the thought that the 2016 election was stolen, if there ever was a President that stole an election, it was Kennedy.

The family, had quite a bit of help from the mob, to amass votes in Chicago and guess what, whoever won Illinois, was going to be the next president. I think Kennedy won by something like; 2,000 votes, in Illinois.

Click to expand...

I believe that the tally was a 8,800 vote margin in IL, but your point could still be valid. However, based upon what I have heard, I think you folks should look to the WV Primary, when Kennedy beat Humphrey by about a 60-40 margin. Back in 1960 not too many people voted in primaries and thus the union vote was critical. Word has it that it was Kennedy, Sr. who managed to get the unions to endorse his son. As to the general election, TX reportedly had vote fraud as well, especially in some of the counties along the Mexican border, where reportedly one county reported more total votes than the number of people who were registered. However, the TX margin was about 50,000 and it seems much less likely that vote fraud made the difference in TX, like it well could have in IL. Besides IL having a closer vote difference, it also had more total votes than TX, thus meaning that the percentage difference was even closer. KY reportedly had vote fraud in favor of Nixon, however, Nixon won KY by enough of a margin that such probably probably mattered little there.

Nixon probably erred by choosing Lodge. If he had picked Sen. Dirsken of IL, he would certainly have carried IL. However, he still would have come up short. There was no one in TX that he could have picked, to carry that state. If somehow he could have carried IL and TX, he would have won the election by just one Electoral Vote. He lost Hawaii by a few hundred and NV and NM by a few thousand each. More important, he lost MN and MO by 10,000 each, as well as SC for that matter. The 1960 Election will probably never be repeated in terms of the large number of states that were quite close or relatively close. I think NJ was only about a 20,000 vote difference. I suppose that if we forget TX, Nixon could have probably won by that one Electoral Vote if he could have carried NJ and either MN or MO, assuming IL as well. Many claim that the first debate made the difference, though those who heard it on the radio gave it to Nixon, while those who watched on tv thought Kennedy won. Many experts say that Nixon lost that first debate, mostly because he refused to wear makeup and that as a result, his appearance was not good. As close as the 1960 Election was, it is quite possible might have won if he had put on makeup in the first debate, though we cannot be certain. It does seem likely that he would have carried IL and maybe Hawaii, but uncertain about all the other close states. What does seem certain is that the 110,000-120,000 vote margin in the Popular Vote for Kennedy would probably have shrunk to a virtual tie or a slight Nixon lead.

I believe that the tally was a 8,800 vote margin in IL, but your point could still be valid. However, based upon what I have heard, I think you folks should look to the WV Primary, when Kennedy beat Humphrey by about a 60-40 margin. Back in 1960 not too many people voted in primaries and thus the union vote was critical. Word has it that it was Kennedy, Sr. who managed to get the unions to endorse his son. As to the general election, TX reportedly had vote fraud as well, especially in some of the counties along the Mexican border, where reportedly one county reported more total votes than the number of people who were registered. However, the TX margin was about 50,000 and it seems much less likely that vote fraud made the difference in TX, like it well could have in IL. Besides IL having a closer vote difference, it also had more total votes than TX, thus meaning that the percentage difference was even closer. KY reportedly had vote fraud in favor of Nixon, however, Nixon won KY by enough of a margin that such probably probably mattered little there.

Nixon probably erred by choosing Lodge. If he had picked Sen. Dirsken of IL, he would certainly have carried IL. However, he still would have come up short. There was no one in TX that he could have picked, to carry that state. If somehow he could have carried IL and TX, he would have won the election by just one Electoral Vote. He lost Hawaii by a few hundred and NV and NM by a few thousand each. More important, he lost MN and MO by 10,000 each, as well as SC for that matter. The 1960 Election will probably never be repeated in terms of the large number of states that were quite close or relatively close. I think NJ was only about a 20,000 vote difference. I suppose that if we forget TX, Nixon could have probably won by that one Electoral Vote if he could have carried NJ and either MN or MO, assuming IL as well. Many claim that the first debate made the difference, though those who heard it on the radio gave it to Nixon, while those who watched on tv thought Kennedy won. Many experts say that Nixon lost that first debate, mostly because he refused to wear makeup and that as a result, his appearance was not good. As close as the 1960 Election was, it is quite possible might have won if he had put on makeup in the first debate, though we cannot be certain. It does seem likely that he would have carried IL and maybe Hawaii, but uncertain about all the other close states. What does seem certain is that the 110,000-120,000 vote margin in the Popular Vote for Kennedy would probably have shrunk to a virtual tie or a slight Nixon lead.

Click to expand...

Yes you are correct. 5 million votes in illinois and kennedy won by 8k votes.

As I recall, Kennedy's margin in the Popular Vote pretty much equaled the margin in Allegheny County, PA, of which the suburbs were even, thus meaning that the margin in the entire country = the difference in Pittsburgh. As to the race itself, I remember a tv interview I saw long ago with NY Gov Rockefeller. He felt that if Nixon had picked him for VP in 1960, that Nixon might well have won. I suppose that Rocky could have wiped out the 20,000 margin in NJ, but I really doubt that he would have carried NY or PA for the GOP. I could be wrong, however, For what it is worth, I just checked the map. NJ and NY were worth 16 and 45 votes respectively, while IL and TX were only worth 27 and 24. Hence, if Rocky could have switched NY and NJ, Nixon would have won. While I doubt Rocky could have carried NY, he would have had a decent chance at doing so.